OpenBSD Journal

The Jem Report on GPL/BSD Licensing

Contributed by dwc on from the reality-programming dept.

Jem Matzan writes about licensing issues in Once Again, Reality Trumps Idealism:

So on the one hand we have the FSF trying to change reality through restrictive software licenses; and on the other we have the BSD license, which deals with the mercurial nature of reality just as it is. One assumes that freedom needs to be defined in order to be valid, and protected through multiple convoluted restrictions; the other assumes that freedom finds its own personal definitions for all of us, and only requires that you not remove the author's copyright notice or the license statement from the code. If there were a Taoist here, he might say that software licenses, like human beings, enter this world warm and soft, and leave it cold and hard.

(Comments are closed)


Comments
  1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

    Some developers like the BSD license and the near-total freedom that it represents, and that's fine, they can use a BSD-only license. Other developers like the GPL and the warranty that their code will not wind up in binary-only software, and that's also fine, they can use a GPL-only license.

    But yet others such as Sam Leffner, Jiri Slaby and Nick Kossifidis wish to give other developers the _choice_ to fork their source into a GPL-only branch (which cannot be closed-sourced), a BSD-only branch or a branch that retains both options. That is quite different from insisting that all forks must always retain both options (and thus can always be closed-sourced). The intent of the dual license developers was to permit GPL-only branches which are protected against close-sourcing (and you can ask those developers directly if you don't believe that). If you don't like the GPL, you can fork your own BSD-only branch and work on that. But don't try to take away the _choice_ from others to go GPL only. Don't try to override the original authors' intentions just because the GPL is not compatible with your personal world view.

    Comments
    1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

      > Some developers like the BSD license and the near-total freedom that it represents, and that's fine, they can use a BSD-only license. Other developers like the GPL and the warranty that their code will not wind up in binary-only software, and that's also fine, they can use a GPL-only license.
      >
      > But yet others such as Sam Leffner, Jiri Slaby and Nick Kossifidis wish to give other developers the _choice_ to fork their source into a GPL-only branch (which cannot be closed-sourced), a BSD-only branch or a branch that retains both options. That is quite different from insisting that all forks must always retain both options (and thus can always be closed-sourced). The intent of the dual license developers was to permit GPL-only branches which are protected against close-sourcing (and you can ask those developers directly if you don't believe that). If you don't like the GPL, you can fork your own BSD-only branch and work on that. But don't try to take away the _choice_ from others to go GPL only. Don't try to override the original authors' intentions just because the GPL is not compatible with your personal world view.
      >
      >

      Nice misrepresentation. A dual license doesn't grant you the right to change the original code's license. Yes, you can put dual licensed code that you add sufficient of your own work to under a license that either of the licenses the original code is licensed under are compatible with, that is not the same thing as removing the original license terms from the original code. Considering the amount this has been discussed, arguing that they are the same seems to be deliberately dishonest and not a mere misunderstanding.

      Comments
      1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

        Considering that Sam, Jiri (and Nick if you ask him) already made clear that they do allow their dual-licensed code to go GPL only, it's very dishonest to say that it isn't allowed.

        Comments
        1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

          > Considering that Sam, Jiri (and Nick if you ask him) already made clear that they do allow their dual-licensed code to go GPL only, it's very dishonest to say that it isn't allowed.

          not really, as the author(s) have given permission for the relicensing does not change the fact that the original unauthorised relicensing of dual licensed code was wrong.

          Comments
          1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

            > not really, as the author(s) have given permission for the relicensing does not change the fact that the original unauthorised relicensing of dual licensed code was wrong.

            The intention of the original authors for choosing a dual license was specifically to allow relicensing under either BSD or GPL. Again, why not ask the authors themselves, rather than relying on your own or on Theo's interpretation?

            Comments
            1. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.86.128) on

              > > not really, as the author(s) have given permission for the relicensing does not change the fact that the original unauthorised relicensing of dual licensed code was wrong.
              >
              > The intention of the original authors for choosing a dual license was specifically to allow relicensing under either BSD or GPL. Again, why not ask the authors themselves, rather than relying on your own or on Theo's interpretation?

              Because the Authors may did a MISSTAKE.
              They included BOTH LICENSES into the Code.
              They didn't provided Both Licenses in some extra files with a comment in the code like "Choose".
              So BOTH Licenses where TRUE and the BSD License clearly tells you to NOT remove it. But that happened...

              That's a clear license violation and next time I hope somebody sues those guys 'course talking is useless with such People.

              In fact the Authors "choosed" that BOTH Licenses apply. They CHOOSED for you by including the license into the Code. So you or me can't simply rip of ONE License even I don't use it.

              Of course they also allowed (partly) to relicense under the GPL but because they included both licenses we had some issues because the BSD License CLEARLY said you're NOT allowed to remove it and there was no written angrement that the Linux-Guy was allowed to do so.

              Dual Licensing ITSELF is CRAP. And I enforce the OpenBSD developers to NOT play with such fucked up tactics 'course you wanna look Linux friendly. Linus and co doesn't deserve to get handled in a normal human way because Linus itself should have stand up and said "Well wait there's something fishy and we should clear at first the License question". Also Mr. Cox response shows clearly how less they do care about others.

              None said: Yes BOTH Licenses where set to TRUE so wich is "valid" for us now? People just jumped up and started to cry "the GPL is right and you're wrong"-blabla.

              if BOTH Licenses where included (more or less) then BOTH Licenses apply so all Patches and co can get released under BOTH licenses or need a special note that THIS PART of the Code is GPL only.

              It wouldn't have been a problem to simply add a simple /* These Lines are GPL only*/ so there wouldn't have been ANY license violatioen becaus the rest would have still be released under BOTH Licenses.

              License Law is also simply FUCKED UP so I simply call for GPL-rewrites (base system!) + 4 clause BSD Licenses (still free but GPL incompatible).

              The whole License thing just showed how LESS we all can predict the influence of a dual licensed file. And I simply WONT be a lawyer if I wanna release source code. Will you?

              Comments
              1. By Anonymous Coward (216.93.163.234) on

                > License Law is also simply FUCKED UP so I simply call for GPL-rewrites (base system!) + 4 clause BSD Licenses (still free but GPL incompatible).

                this sounds more and more appealing as the unwillingness of the GPL fan base to act as responsible contributors to open source becomes clear.

                Comments
                1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

                  > > License Law is also simply FUCKED UP so I simply call for GPL-rewrites (base system!) + 4 clause BSD Licenses (still free but GPL incompatible).
                  >
                  > this sounds more and more appealing as the unwillingness of the GPL fan base to act as responsible contributors to open source becomes clear.
                  >

                  Such thing already exists, OpenSSL has a modified GPL-incompatible BSD license: http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html

                  Comments
                  1. By Anonymous Coward (208.97.171.15) on

                    >
                    > Such thing already exists, OpenSSL has a modified GPL-incompatible BSD license: http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html

                    Which is why now gnutls is getting rather popular.

                    Comments
                    1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

                      > Which is why now gnutls is getting rather popular.

                      Looks like an interesting project

                      http://www.gnu.org/software/gnutls/comparison.html

                      did it start merely to create a GPL'd SSL ?

              2. By Anonymous Coward (80.32.164.76) on

                > Because the Authors may did a MISSTAKE.
                > They included BOTH LICENSES into the Code.
                > They didn't provided Both Licenses in some extra files with a comment in the code like "Choose".
                > So BOTH Licenses where TRUE and the BSD License clearly tells you to NOT remove it. But that happened...

                ROFL. Look, the author can't make a mistake. If the author wants to give you a choice of licenses, or say that you can only distribute the source of Tuesdays it's their right.

                It's the author's copyright, they can license under whatever terms they want.

                You simply didn't like that what the authors actually intended and decided to try to twist a very simple "Choose GPL or BSD" into something bizarre just to make it fit your concept of how things should be.

                I've never before heard such a strange interpretation of dual licensing as here. For example, take Qt. You can EITHER use Qt under the GPL, OR their proprietary license.

                The second option allows you to avoid having to redistribute your source under the GPL, in exchange for paying $$$ to Trolltech. Now think what good would this scheme be if as you said both licenses applied.

                Comments
                1. By Anonymous Coward (66.239.94.105) on

                  > ROFL. Look, the author can't make a mistake. If the author wants to give you a choice of licenses, or say that you can only distribute the source of Tuesdays it's their right.


                  Yes, the author can make mistakes.
                  If I say "my code is released under public domain" then once it hits the wild, I can't take it back. Granted, this goes against my intentions if I intended something else, however once you put it down and give it away -- that's it.

                  BUT, if the person receiving it knew what public domain meant and the person giving it didn't -- which one matters the most? I know have a copy that says it's public domain but you say you didn't mean that and want to take it back, you meant something else. I thought you meant one thing and you actually meant another.

                  It really turns in to a "too bad, so sad" type thing -- unless you were manipulated.

                  Comments
                  1. By Anonymous Coward (80.32.164.76) on

                    > Yes, the author can make mistakes.
                    > If I say "my code is released under public domain" then once it hits the wild, I can't take it back. Granted, this goes against my intentions if I intended something else, however once you put it down and give it away -- that's it.
                    Ok, you got me there. Although it's not exactly what I meant.

                    The claim here seems to be that despite a very clear intention to offer the choice of the license as implied by the word "alternatively", the intention of the author can somehow be subverted by playing strange games with a law some people seem to like to refer to, but nobody seems to know which exact law it is.

                    The post I replied to seemed to imply that the author made a technical mistake, and that the way of specifying the terms rather than the terms themselves can be somehow used to completely reinterpret what was meant.

                    Really, all this reinterpretation of that "alternatively" can be understood to mean "and" is an awful lot like Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". If you get to the point where you can argue that such an unambigous word means something completely opposite you could as well drop from the discussion, because nothing useful is going to come out of it.

                    Comments
                    1. By Anonymous Coward (75.8.119.38) on

                      The receiver of the license understood the license to mean X.
                      The author of the license understood the license to mean Y.
                      This isn't, which you seem to imply, that the receiver is transforming Y to mean X which is not the case.

                      So, at that point, it boils down to what the author wrote down. Intention? Intent implies that it is in his thoughts (the ideal meaning of what he wants), correct? Please explain how you expect me to read his mind? If you don't expect this, how do you expect me to understand what he wants?
                      If it is to be written down, then is he allowed to transform that license later in to his "real" intentions? How many times is this allowed to happen?

                      Should we all hire lawyers every time we release software to make sure out intentions are exact? Is that still in stone or are we allowed to change it again?

                      and honestly, why did you bring politics in to this? Come on -- grow up.

                      Now, if you want my honest opinion (hey, we are here -- so yeah...) then I think far too few developers (software and documentation) understand the licenses (myself included). I can understand a mistake happened because he didn't understand what he signed in to. Do I think he should be able to take it back? Not really. It's a commitment once you do that.

                      I would really like to find a book which explains the licensing schemes of everything -- intentions, implications, legal, and perspective values.

                      It's sad we can't put our thoughts in to a legal paper and make it binding... but too many people would find loopholes and abuse it.

                      Comments
                      1. By Anonymous Coward (80.32.164.76) on

                        > So, at that point, it boils down to what the author wrote down. Intention? Intent implies that it is in his thoughts (the ideal meaning of what he wants), correct? Please explain how you expect me to read his mind? If you don't expect this, how do you expect me to understand what he wants?
                        > If it is to be written down, then is he allowed to transform that license later in to his "real" intentions? How many times is this allowed to happen?

                        Ok, the license that was in the file:

                        * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
                        * All rights reserved.
                        [ snipped 3-clause BSD ]
                        * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
                        * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
                        * Software Foundation.

                        The submitter interpreted that as "the license is BSD, or you can use the GPL2 instead", and decided that the GPL2 was the one they wanted. So the patch removed everything after the copyright and replaced it with:

                        * This file is released under GPLv2


                        Now I'd like a reasonable explanation how can "alternatively" be understood as "both" in this case.

                        >
                        > Should we all hire lawyers every time we release software to make sure out intentions are exact? Is that still in stone or are we allowed to change it again?

                        My point precisely is that the "both" interpretation requires a really convoluted lawyer-like interpretation that I'm sure even lawyers would disagree with. I'm quite sure that this interpretation would fail the "reasonable man" test.

                        Besides I fail to see what would the point of claiming such a thing be anyway, as the GPL is a superset of the BSD license, so if you add the conditions of both what you end up with is the GPL.

                        Perhaps this is part of the problem though, as "both" would be an ever stranger proposition if both licenses happened to be mutually exclusive.

                        >
                        > and honestly, why did you bring politics in to this? Come on -- grow up.

                        It's nothing to do with the politics, but intended as an example of a silly statement. Clinton just happened to be who made a well known one.

                        My point was that if you've started debating the meaning of perfectly normal words like "is" and "alternatively", the discussion is pointless already. If you interpret "yes" as "no", and "alive" as "dead" you can arrive at very interesting conclusions which will have zilch to do with reality.


                        > Now, if you want my honest opinion (hey, we are here -- so yeah...) then I think far too few developers (software and documentation) understand the licenses (myself included). I can understand a mistake happened because he didn't understand what he signed in to. Do I think he should be able to take it back? Not really. It's a commitment once you do that.

                        Again, I disagree. What the author intended is perfectly clear to any normal person, even if it might not be 100% the way a lawyer would have written it.

                        Comments
                        1. By Anonymous Coward (75.8.119.38) on


                          > My point precisely is that the "both" interpretation requires a really convoluted lawyer-like interpretation that I'm sure even lawyers would disagree with. I'm quite sure that this interpretation would fail the "reasonable man" test.

                          > Again, I disagree. What the author intended is perfectly clear to any normal person, even if it might not be 100% the way a lawyer would have written it.

                          Wait, what?
                          So what you are saying is that the average person really doesn't know what the license they are releasing code under means, but they do it anyways? Or they release it under a license, where some intention is invisibly put up on this license, but the lawyers can't make sense on what it really means?

                          /confused on this one

                          What about this file:

                          /*
                          diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c
                          index c345da8..067c837 100644
                          --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c
                          +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c
                          @@ -1,9 +1,7 @@
                          /*
                          * Copyright (c) 2004, 2005 Reyk Floeter <reyk@vantronix.net>
                          *
                          - * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
                          - * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
                          - * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
                          + * This file is released under GPLv2
                          */

                          I don't see where it is dual licensed, and yet it was changed where it specifically said: "provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies".

                          Comments
                          1. By Anonymous Coward (80.32.164.76) on

                            > So what you are saying is that the average person really doesn't know what the license they are releasing code under means, but they do it anyways? Or they release it under a license, where some intention is invisibly put up on this license, but the lawyers can't make sense on what it really means?

                            No, I claim that any reasonable person reading that text would have come to the conclusion that they can choose either GPL or BSD, but not that both must apply.


                            > What about this file:
                            >
                            > [snip]
                            > I don't see where it is dual licensed, and yet it was changed where it specifically said: "provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies".

                            Then that'd be a screwup, nothing to argue.

                            Comments
                            1. By Anonymous Coward (75.8.119.38) on

                              > > So what you are saying is that the average person really doesn't know what the license they are releasing code under means, but they do it anyways? Or they release it under a license, where some intention is invisibly put up on this license, but the lawyers can't make sense on what it really means?
                              >
                              > No, I claim that any reasonable person reading that text would have come to the conclusion that they can choose either GPL or BSD, but not that both must apply.

                              I'll concede, you are right. It was this post that convinced me:
                              http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18565&comment_id=268653

                              Here is my reasoning for arguing:
                              http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070903220113&pid=43

                              > Then that'd be a screwup, nothing to argue.

                              That's part of what happened. I don't recall if it's fixed or not, but I think talks have already / are already happening, so I'll just let them duke that out since this is seemingly binary issue.

                        2. By Anonymous Coward (75.8.119.38) on

                          Do know that my point (regardless on if we decide is right or wrong, in the end) is intended to act like any business or prick would should they be put in these shoes. They will get a lawyer and manipulate the system. We need something to protect those intentions and it needs to be legal.

                          Using Microsoft as an example:
                          I would much rather act like Microsoft and get proven wrong than ignore it and have Microsoft come in and abuse it. They will act like a big legal prick. We need to hammer out all this to the finest points and details to protect the community with GPL intentions and BSD intentions.
                          If we can't protect ourselves from each other, how can we protect ourselves from someone with malice (versus misunderstandings)?

                2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

                  > ROFL. Look, the author can't make a mistake.

                  I'll be sure to quote that in all bug reports ;p

              3. By Anonymous Coward (68.100.130.1) on

                > License Law is also simply FUCKED UP so I simply call for [..] 4 clause BSD Licenses (still free but GPL incompatible).

                Dammit, no. This would recreate the original problem AGAIN.

                Closed-source software company says, "Since we sell our software, we obviously can't give out the source for free", making restricted code that can't be reused freely.

                GNU and/or Linux developer says, "Well, if they won't share with us, we certainly won't share with them", and switches to the GPL, making restricted code that can't be reused freely.

                Shortsighted BSD developer says, "Well, if THEY won't share with US, we certainly won't share with them", and switches to 4-clause license, making restricted code that can't be reused freely.

                Where does it end?

                If you want to better people who place restrictions, SHARE.

                Comments
                1. By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on


                  > Shortsighted BSD developer says, "Well, if THEY won't share with US, we certainly won't share with them", and switches to 4-clause license, making restricted code that can't be reused freely.
                  >
                  > Where does it end?
                  >
                  > If you want to better people who place restrictions, SHARE.
                  >

                  The most obvious solution to all of this, ironically, is to release under GPLv3, appending a boiler-plate notice making it clear alternative licenses may be accepted if the copyright holder is contacted. That way, if everyone does this, everything will be compatible as long as it remains free software, and the copyright holders themselves will be able to choose whether to allow proprietary forks.

                  The BSD license is quickly growing to be an anachronism as it undermines the ability of programmers to ensure their software is not misused in a proprietary form, and thus most of the attention ends up being limited to copylefted code. Theo is now arguing that the license is viral, that once code is licensed under the BSD license, it and all derivatives are also viral, which means that it offers no protection to those who want it, yet isn't free enough for those who really want their code used by proprietary vendors. I would imagine after this Earthquake, there's little chance most proprietary users of BSD software will be comfortable with using it.

                  It's far from ideal, and a straightforward copyleft with an opt-out that allows copyright holders to bless proprietary forks is infinitely more business friendly.

                  Comments
                  1. By Anonymous Coward (84.192.149.197) on

                    > It's far from ideal, and a straightforward copyleft with an opt-out that allows copyright holders to bless proprietary forks is infinitely more business friendly.

                    What would you need the opt-out for, anyway? The author can always do as he pleases and give his code for proprietary forks even if he has licensed it under other terms before.

            2. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

              > > not really, as the author(s) have given permission for the relicensing does not change the fact that the original unauthorised relicensing of dual licensed code was wrong.
              >
              > The intention of the original authors for choosing a dual license was specifically to allow relicensing under either BSD or GPL. Again, why not ask the authors themselves, rather than relying on your own or on Theo's interpretation?
              >

              if you're referring to this:
              http://uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0709.0/0159.html
              the post where Sam clarifies the _specific_ case of his code in linux and freebsd. Notice this "The code in question is my code. It has my copyright (modulo bits shared with onoe-san who was consulted on the switch from dual-bsd/gpl to bsd only in freebsd)." Strange how FreeBSD couldn't just change the license to BSD unilaterally (After all, it was dual licensed so they could do it anyway, right?)

              Comments
              1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

                > if you're referring to this:
                > http://uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0709.0/0159.html
                > the post where Sam clarifies the _specific_ case of his code in linux and freebsd. Notice this "The code in question is my code. It has my copyright (modulo bits shared with onoe-san who was consulted on the switch from dual-bsd/gpl to bsd only in freebsd)."

                Ok, so why did you leave out "I have the definitive say and I have said that any of my code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only."? Sam has clarified that his dual licensed code can go GPL-only. So did Jiri, and so will Nick if you ask him. So I don't see what you people are still bickering about, all thee authors of the dual licensed files in the ath5k say you can make them GPL-only, and you guys keep trying to pretend you can't because just you and Theo dislike the GPL.


                > Strange how FreeBSD couldn't just change the license to BSD unilaterally (After all, it was dual licensed so they could do it anyway, right?)

                What exactly makes you think they couldn't? If you check the FeeBSD tree you'll find that it is BSD-only there.

            3. By Lars Hansson (bysen) on

              > Again, why not ask the authors themselves, rather than relying on your own or on Theo's interpretation?

              Yeah, why rely on actual copyright law and what is actually written in the license when you can spend time tracking down every person with dual-licensed work and ask what his intentions where. Crazy.

              Comments
              1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

                > Yeah, why rely on actual copyright law

                There is nothing in copyright law that forbids you to alter or remove the text of a BSD license.


                > and what is actually written in the license

                What is actually written in the dual license is that you can distribute the files under the terms of the GPLv2, which does not require you to keep the text of the BSD license. Just like you can distribute them under the terms of the BSD, which does not forbid you to ship a closed-source version.


                > when you can spend time tracking down every person with dual-licensed work and ask what his intentions where. Crazy.

                But if you actually did that you'll find that their intention is that a GPL-only version is permitted. But you won't do that since that's not what you wanted to hear because you dislike the GPL so much.

                Comments
                1. By Lars Hansson (bysen) on

                  "There is nothing in copyright law that forbids you to alter or remove the text of a BSD license."

                  Oh yeah, good thing that's not what this entire bruhau was about or anything. Copyright law forbids you to make alterations to the works of others without permission. Amazingly enough, alter and remove constitutes altering the work.

                  "What is actually written in the dual license is that you can distribute the files under the terms of the GPLv2, which does not require you to keep the text of the BSD license. Just like you can distribute them under the terms of the BSD, which does not forbid you to ship a closed-source version."

                  This has been already been explained.

                  "But if you actually did that you'll find that their intention is that a GPL-only version is permitted. But you won't do that since that's not what you wanted to hear because you dislike the GPL so much."

                  Amazing. You know what I like and dislike? Are you a mindreader? You're not that good though.
                  FYI, I don't "dislike the GPL so much", it's just not for me. Perhaps it's you who don't want to hear the truth?

                  Comments
                  1. By Anonymous Coward (208.97.171.15) on

                    > Oh yeah, good thing that's not what this entire bruhau was about or anything. Copyright law forbids you to make alterations to the works of others without permission. Amazingly enough, alter and remove constitutes altering the work.
                    Except you were granted that permission by the "alternatively, you can use the GPL" part.

                    The author simply quotes the license text verbatim and gives you a choice.

                    > Amazing. You know what I like and dislike? Are you a mindreader? You're not that good though.
                    > FYI, I don't "dislike the GPL so much", it's just not for me. Perhaps it's you who don't want to hear the truth?
                    No, you're the one who doesn't want to hear the truth.

                    Whatever you want things to be like doesn't matter, the authors made their intent perfectly clear.

        2. By Tobias Weingartner (68.151.168.15) weingart@tepid.org on http://www.tepid.org/~weingart/

          > Considering that Sam, Jiri (and Nick if you ask him) already made clear
          > that they do allow their dual-licensed code to go GPL only, it's very
          > dishonest to say that it isn't allowed.

          It does not really matter what their original intention was. It really
          only matters what the law says. In this case, BOTH licenses apply. If
          the original authors did not wish that, they may relicense future copies
          of this code as they choose. If you have the ok from all the authors,
          you can change the license to what they specify.

          OpenBSD has done this on a number of occasions in the tree. We've chased
          down and talked with numerous people through the years, asking them
          politely if a BSD style license would be acceptable to them. We did not
          hound them, we merely pointed out the benefits of the BSD license to them.
          Many of them have given their work under the BSD license. Some have not,
          and where their license restrictions were too hard (or impossible) to work
          with, we have respected their wishes and removed their code from the tree.

          Anyways, my $0.0194 USD worth... :)

          -T.

          Comments
          1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

            > It does not really matter what their original intention was. It really
            > only matters what the law says. In this case, BOTH licenses apply.

            Does that mean that to distribute dual licensed ath5k files you must always comply with all the terms in both the GPL and the BSD license?


            > If the original authors did not wish that, they may relicense future copies of this code as they choose. If you have the ok from all the authors, you can change the license to what they specify.

            In the case of the dual licensed files in the ath5k drivers, we do. Sam, Jiri and Nick are all OK if they become GPL-only (which by definition is not dual licensed).

            Comments
            1. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.69.223) on

              > > It does not really matter what their original intention was. It really
              > > only matters what the law says. In this case, BOTH licenses apply.
              >
              > Does that mean that to distribute dual licensed ath5k files you must always comply with all the terms in both the GPL and the BSD license?
              >
              >
              > > If the original authors did not wish that, they may relicense future copies of this code as they choose. If you have the ok from all the authors, you can change the license to what they specify.
              >
              > In the case of the dual licensed files in the ath5k drivers, we do. Sam, Jiri and Nick are all OK if they become GPL-only (which by definition is not dual licensed).

              You name it! And because it wasn't a 4-clause BSD License it would have been NO Problem at all because the licenses are compatible.

              The Authors, as I noticed before, made the misstake to include BOTH Licenses so automaticaly BOTH apply (by law!).

              If YOU wish to dual License then create a LICENSE.gpl and a LICENSE.bsd File and make a STATETEMENT in your code that others should choose.

              But if you include Both Licenses it doesn't mean that I could remove License A or B because I doesn't need it. And specialy not if both Licenses tell me clearly: "You're not allowed to remove my license text!"

              Comments
              1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

                I still haven't heard of the "both licenses must always apply" crowd if they think a closed-source version is allowed.

                Comments
                1. By Anonymous Coward (71.138.119.216) on

                  > I still haven't heard of the "both licenses must always apply" crowd if they think a closed-source version is allowed.

                  Huh. I thought it was "both licenses must remain intact in the code block itself" crowd.

              2. By Anonymous Coward (208.97.171.15) on

                > The Authors, as I noticed before, made the misstake to include BOTH Licenses so automaticaly BOTH apply (by law!).
                > If YOU wish to dual License then create a LICENSE.gpl and a LICENSE.bsd File and make a STATETEMENT in your code that others should choose.
                > But if you include Both Licenses it doesn't mean that I could remove License A or B because I doesn't need it. And specialy not if both Licenses tell me clearly: "You're not allowed to remove my license text!"

                That makes no sense at all. What is so magical about using different files?

                Assuming the inclusion of a license means it's necessarily in effect even despite the author saying "you may use this other one instead", why would including the licenses as separate files and the instructions as a third suddenly change that situation?

                Also, the BSD license if put into a separate file would still say that you can't remove it, which following your logic would translate to forbidding the deletion of the file, even if the author tells you to remove the one that you didn't choose.

                I fail to see where's the difference between both methods.

                In case A we have two licenses in a file and the author instructing to choose one. The work here is the file.
                In case B we have two licenses in a tarball and the author instructing to choose one. The work in this case the whole tarball.

                Could somebody please explain why there would be any difference?

              3. By sthen (85.158.44.149) on

                > If YOU wish to dual License then create a LICENSE.gpl and a LICENSE.bsd File and make a STATETEMENT in your code that others should choose.

                Way too complicated. Complicated is bad in software and, as can be seen from the misunderstandings demonstrated recently, it's no better with carefully crafted legal language.

                The various free software licenses are intended to stand on their own and written as such; who knows what judicial interpretation may be made of a combination of licenses glued together by someone more familiar with code than copyright law?

                Just make standalone releases. Separate tarballs, one per license.

                The problem then is taking care under what conditions you'll accept diffs, to ensure that you can still release how you want with the new code inserted. A little messy, but well...you've seen the alternative.

      2. By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on


        > Nice misrepresentation. A dual license doesn't grant you the right to change the original code's license. Yes, you can put dual licensed code that you add sufficient of your own work to under a license that either of the licenses the original code is licensed under are compatible with, that is not the same thing as removing the original license terms from the original code. Considering the amount this has been discussed, arguing that they are the same seems to be deliberately dishonest and not a mere misunderstanding.
        >

        So, your position is that the BSD license is viral, even when it is made explicitly optional by the original copyright holders?

        BTW, for a truly enlightening look at how the OpenBSD people treat the situation when the boot's on the other foot, try looking here:

        http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070406104008&mode=expanded

        Truly bizarre. The biggest irony of all is the insistence of those who promote these kinds of arguments always describing GPL users as "zealots", regardless of what their opinions are.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (68.100.130.1) on

      > But yet others such as Sam Leffner, Jiri Slaby and Nick Kossifidis wish to give other developers the _choice_ to fork their source into a GPL-only branch (which cannot be closed-sourced), a BSD-only branch or a branch that retains both options. That is quite different from insisting that all forks must always retain both options (and thus can always be closed-sourced). The intent of the dual license developers was to permit GPL-only branches which are protected against close-sourcing (and you can ask those developers directly if you don't believe that). If you don't like the GPL, you can fork your own BSD-only branch and work on that. But don't try to take away the _choice_ from others to go GPL only.

      I completely agree with the principle you're expressing here (it's why I PD-dedicate my own software, so people can fork it and do absolutely whatever). But I think you're confused as to what happened here. The problem is that BSD licensing statements were removed (in some cases from BSD-license-only files, even).

      BTW, I apologize for the other reply that attributed your mistake to malice.

      Comments
      1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

        > I completely agree with the principle you're expressing here (it's why I PD-dedicate my own software, so people can fork it and do absolutely whatever). But I think you're confused as to what happened here. The problem is that BSD licensing statements were removed (in some cases from BSD-license-only files, even).

        In the case of the BSD-only (actually ISC-only) files that was clearly wrong. In the case of the dual license files the authors themselves permit that, but instead of listening to the actual authors people here want to keep pretending that you can't.

  2. By Anonymous Coward (219.90.211.166) on

    I know some people find this interesting, but I find license wars rather irritating. Any chance we can get back to the regularly scheduled program of OpenBSD stuffage?

    That said, I'd like to see if there's a correlation between number of commits and a license war. Does a license war distract devs or motivate them to code more furiously?

    Comments
    1. By mk (130.225.243.71) on

      > That said, I'd like to see if there's a correlation between number of commits and a license war. Does a license war distract devs or motivate them to code more furiously?

      You tell us.

  3. By Anonymous Coward (208.97.171.15) on

    The reality in this case is that the authors chose to make their software available under either license. If somebody doesn't like it that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

    Personally, I don't see how does somebody manage to twist "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation." into something as strange as what Theo came up with.

    The intent was pretty clear, IMO

  4. By Paladdin (213.97.233.52) on

    I think it's pretty naive public software under two licenses that conflict each other.

    A programmer cannot make public a chunk of code under terms that don't merge so well, so it's all a matter of noticing maybe it's the original developer whom didn't understood what each license means.

    State only one license and that's all; you cannot play whites and blacks on the same board! It's GPL xor BSD, else coredump :S

  5. By baldusi (200.68.102.49) on

    Why everybody comments without RTFA?
    The ath driver is composed of various files. Some files have contributions from many developers. Others are from a single developer.
    The biggest issue is illustrated with the HAL files. Those were developed entirely by reyk through an extensive reverse-engineering effort. He licensed those file _only_ as BSD. Jibi took the files and took out the BSD notice and slapped a GPL. There's only one clause in the BSD: you can't take out the notice. You can add a comment and relicense your changes as GPL. In other words, you add a GPL license after your copyright notice. But I can take that file, copy verbatrim all the BSD code (including the notice) and you can't say a thing to me. Even though the file as a whole is GPL. BSD code will always be BSD unless the original author says so.
    Is so much like that, that the own SFLC kept the BSD notices.
    The outcome was a bitter victory for the BSD camp. They were right that you can't change a license nor take it out without the author's consent. But the GPL camp applied its license to all their modifications, thus making it impossible for BSD developers (who did the most difficult task of reverse engineering the hardware) to merge the GPL changes back.
    Theo's error was to address those two issues in the same mail.
    A) You can't take out a BSD notice from a BSD only code.
    B) GPL a BSD code which required a huge amount of effort shows a very uncooperative attitude at best and quite a lack of morality at worst.

  6. By Anonymous Coward (80.32.164.76) on

    It will work for one thing and one thing only: making your source GPL incompatible. But despite what many people here say the GPL isn't the actual problem.

    The next step for somebody on the "GPL side" would be to license their work under the (GPL + advertising clause) license, making it compatible with the 4-clause BSD, and with exactly the same result for the BSD code integrated into it.

    The actual problem people are complaining about is that releasing changes under the GPL makes them unusable for a BSD distribution. To fight that you'd need to fight back with licensing, but you can't while keeping it BSD.

    If you add a clause against integration into "GPL-like viral licenses" you're now conflicting with many other licenses, which specify that any modifications must be released under the same license. This would probably include the Sun Public License, for example.

    If you add a clause saying modifications must be contributed back you're now pretty much excluding any closed source use.

    So my conclusion: Any attempt to make your source incompatible with the "virality" of the GPL would either be ineffective, or involve making the license more GPL-like, ironically enough.

    Comments
    1. By Anonymous Coward (74.13.57.76) on

      How naive, the GPL is a problem, for many people it is, it is meant to be a problem. That's it's job, it's supposed to make everyone follow the GNUcult, I know it's not good form to say as much, but the entire GPL scene is largely a cult atmosphere, you can here the chants of, "one of us," everywhere, as people take code from more liberal projects and relicence them to fit their own standards, leaving the original work deminished and slapping the original developer in the face, by having work that is open, but only to cult members.

      Comments
      1. By Anonymous Coward (80.32.164.76) on

        > How naive, the GPL is a problem, for many people it is, it is meant to be a problem.

        You seem to fail to think it the whole way through. Your problem isn't the GPL itself, it is *what it imposes*

        Would you not agree that a license with all of the characteristics that from your point of view are undersirable, but which wasn't the GPL and not made by the FSF would be equally undesirable? And I'm quite sure such a beast exists as well, the GPL isn't the only "viral" license in existence.

      2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

        > it's supposed to make everyone follow the GNUcult

        I hate to quote him, but Ulrich Drepper had an interesting take on the GPL

        "The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a control freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him. As soon as something isn't in line with his view he'll stab you in the back. *NEVER* voluntarily put a project you work on under the GNU umbrella since this means in Stallman's opinion that he has the right to make decisions for the project"

    2. By art (213.56.159.23) on

      > So my conclusion: Any attempt to make your source incompatible with the
      > "virality" of the GPL would either be ineffective, or involve making the
      > license more GPL-like, ironically enough.

      Only if you want to fight it using lawyers. Why do people react with "I'm going to sue you" to every minor problem they have in interaction with other people? Isn't it easier to just talk to the other person instead of suing him or making legal demands?

      Comments
      1. By Anonymous Coward (80.32.164.76) on

        > Only if you want to fight it using lawyers. Why do people react with "I'm going to sue you" to every minor problem they have in interaction with other people? Isn't it easier to just talk to the other person instead of suing him or making legal demands?

        Because it's pointless to try to fight a battle you can't win, if you're interested in fighting one.

        If you're releasing your source under the BSD because you genuinely believe that people should be able to do whatever they want with it, then that's your right and there's nothing wrong with it.

        Now releasing something without strings attached and then complaining that you don't like what's being done with it is silly. Of course you have your right to complain, but so they have their right to ignore you completely.

        It's hard to tell the difference between the "I don't give a damn" BSD users and the "We'd like contributions but don't want to force them legally" ones. If you have expectations just make them clear and explicit, and save the world some drama.

        Comments
        1. By Anonymous Coward (82.195.149.9) on

          > If you're releasing your source under the BSD because you genuinely believe that people should be able to do whatever they want with it, then that's your right and there's nothing wrong with it.

          If you release your code under BSD license, you still keep credit and copyright. Linux people removed this, thus invalidating the BSD license.

          Comments
          1. By Anonymous Coward (82.195.149.9) on

            > > If you're releasing your source under the BSD because you genuinely believe that people should be able to do whatever they want with it, then that's your right and there's nothing wrong with it.
            >
            > If you release your code under BSD license, you still keep credit and copyright. Linux people removed this, thus invalidating the BSD license.

            s/invalidating/violating

Latest Articles

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]